Forum:Proposal of Admin Rules and Regulations
Rules Proposed *Administrators can delete and undelete pages, page histories, and uploaded files. *Administrators can lock (protect) a page so it cannot be edited or renamed by users without admin rights. *Administrators can block IP addresses or user names from editing. *Administrators can perform a very quick "rollback" of undesirable edits. *Administrators can edit the interface by changing system messages and skins. However: *Administrators should not use their administrator powers to settle editing disputes; for example, to lock a page on a version he or she prefers in an editing dispute that isn't vandalism. *Administrator powers should be use to help keep the wiki clear of vandalism, spam, and users who make malicious edits, but not for simple disagreements between users acting in good faith. *An admin shouldn't be considered "in charge". *An admin is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the Wikia community. - from Mass Effect Wiki:Administrators *An admin not to delete/lock forum proposals that aren't vandalism and are put forward according to the forum rules. *An admin's word does not carry any more weight in an editing/content dispute to which they are a primary party. *An admin must in no circumstances use admin powers or the threat of them in an argument. *Admins are expected to be exemplars of Wikia's own guidelines for assuming good faith in edits. - proposed by User:Cattlesquat here. *An admin must assume that a newcomer's mistakes are made in good faith and must not attack them for these mistakes. *An admin must try to encourage new editors to observe the Manual of Style guidelines, and help imporve the quality of valid edits where possible. *An admin must not devalue a member of the community for any criteria, such as number of mainspace edits. All editors and their opinions are equally valid. - paraphrased from Wikipedia's own administrator guidelines. Discussion It has become quite clear on the discussions here that this community wants our admins to be more accountable, and that many members of this community believe that certain administrators have abused the powers and privileges of their station. Thus I believe that this community should come together to organise a list of rules that we want our administrators to follow, highlighting where we feel that previous administrators have abused their power to the detriment of the community. Now allow me to be quite clear - this proposal is not to bind the hands of our admins, nor to make them subservient to the whims of our community, but instead it is to engender trust between the admins and community, by highlighting very clearly for both sides the exact limits of their ability. What they can do, and what they cannot do. To reach this goal we will need discussion and input from both sides of this argument, and when clear definitions of what an administrator can and cannot do are in place they will be voted on by this community to be placed on this page for everyone to see. Garhdo (talk) 21:27, July 16, 2014 (UTC) I might also suggest that we look at the necessary qualifications for an admin in the first place. Currently the Basic requirements listed here are as follows: *Are you a Senior Editor (a user who has been granted Rollbacker status)? *Do you have at least 1000 mainspace article edits at Mass Effect Wiki, and do mainspace article edits form at least 50% of your edit total? *Is your account at Mass Effect Wiki at least 18 months old? *Have you contributed to Mass Effect Wiki on a frequent and regular basis? I would argue the case that not all of these are applicable for an admin, or at least not the only necessary thing. Obviously looking at mainspace edits is necessary, but with a lot of the mainspace not currently in need of a tremendous amount of editing, and a lot of content being able to be uploaded in a single edit, the amount of edits is not really applicable. Instead I would look at the quality of those edits and what they have bought to the wiki, such as policy changes. I would also argue that as well as time among our community and a user's standing within it, it would also be necessary to look at how a particular user has followed our guidelines - Have they ever been blocked, or victimised another user? And in the light of many recent events I would remove the last requirement. Many users have been virtually inactive since Mass Effect 3's release, or at least Citadel's. The main reason there is such contention against the current admin seems to be because the previous two admins and Site Bureaucrat seemed to promote him to the position and then promptly abandon him, leaving him without guidance. Many valued members of our community are returning after periods of absence, and as more information is released about the next game many more will undoubtedly follow. We need more Admins and Senior Editors and cannot rule out good candidates because they have taken a leave of absence. Garhdo (talk) 21:40, July 16, 2014 (UTC) :Just popping in to point out this might not yet be the place; only fully-formed proposals are to be posted in the Policy Forum proper, since voting is opened immediately and an endpoint must be specified (see MEW:Collaboration). Perhaps this could be taken to eg. the Administrators talk page instead. Elseweyr talk • 21:49:14, 2014-07-16 (UTC) ::I was trying to open it just for discussion before the vote, which I have seen some things do, although that may have been in Projects rather than Policy. I'll leave it here for now but move it on admin suggestion. Garhdo (talk) 22:15, July 16, 2014 (UTC) :::(Interjection here...) I've moved this to Projects until the vote is ready since this is under discussion. Trandra (talk) 17:59, July 17, 2014 (UTC) :::A couple thoughts. There is one rule I think should be stricken, namely "Administrators should not use their administrator powers to settle editing disputes". That's kinda one of the reasons admins exist. I'd suggest either removing it or clarifying it. I assume the intent is to say that admins shouldn't use their powers to settle editing disputes in their favor, i.e. using the powers to win an edit war. :::Two - this may be splitting hairs, but I note there are no references to bureaucrats. I'm A-OK with being given carte blanche unlimited powers, though... So if that was your intent, I'm cool with that! (That was a joke...) SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:16, July 17, 2014 (UTC) ::::Yeah, clarification is needed. I think the version I'd proposed was more like "Administrators and Bureaucrats should not use their administrator powers or status to promote their own opinions in editing disputes to which they are a party." And add something like "Enforcing the rules and being a fair referee is expected; however an admin's opinion in a content or wording dispute carries neither more nor less weight in establishing consensus than that of a regular editor, except to the extent that the admin's greater experience may sway the rest of the community when forming consensus. Admins are expected to be friendly or at least cordial when their own edits are challenged for discussion on a talk page - consensus should carry the day. A good admin can convince others to support their opinion; it should never be coerced through the threat, either explicit or implied, of using admin powers. If an admin is a primary party in a content dispute and it there seem to be policy/enforcement issues as well, it is preferred that one or the other party ask for assistance from an uninvolved admin, who can provide a neutral point of view to referee any procedural points." Something like that should fully cover the situations where I've seen things go off the rails, while leaving admins complete freedom to enforce policy. Cattlesquat (talk) 18:50, July 17, 2014 (UTC) :::I believe on the Administrator page that rule is clarified with the example that an admin could not, for example lock a page to a version they preferred. Perhaps I should have left that part in. I will clarify it in a second. Also I believe you would be affected by many of these rules as well, as would Senior Editors for some of them (their voice carrying more weight, reverting valid changes they dont like, etc) however I believe it may be necessary for you to have a degree more power as a sort of final vote on things. Garhdo (talk) 09:31, July 17, 2014 (UTC) :::Agreed. Honestly, the only major difference between a Bureaucrat and an Admin is that the former can promote and demote the latter, and promote to (but not demote from) Bureaucrat status. It was more a concern over semantics. SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:02, July 17, 2014 (UTC) In a general point of view I would stick to general concept to not be too restrictive. The current page is great even if we should add the three things you proposed (Assumption of good faith, give guidance for newcomers, do not use admin power to force a project). As I stated in the other discussion I'm strongly in favor of a mention of the "administrative team" (chat mod and senior) who should also be exemplar in terms of guidance and good faith assumption. In that case, it's not only the admins who have to do the job which can be irritating... This way, it also push the community to do the same. In general, I think that the idea of a "TEAM" should be present as it will reduce the assumption that our admins are dictator which isn't true. A simple mention of that will not hurt their authorities but will be more community oriented. --DeldiRe (talk) 10:32, July 18, 2014 (UTC) Just stopping by because Sannse posted this: http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Sannse/Choosing_the_Right_Admins. Tangentially relevant in describing desired qualities. Cattlesquat (talk) 22:11, July 30, 2014 (UTC) Here's an idea: Take TE78's sysop rights away, but let him retain his rollback rights, then have a community vote on who should replace him as administrator. Versta 00:43, January 28, 2015 (UTC) We had this insane debate several months ago. The conclusion was clear: TE78 remains our admin. HOWEVER, you are free to relaunch the debate to give a clearer view of what an admin should be on this wiki. And of course, I'm in favor of a new admin to help Temp in his work.--DeldiRe (talk) 12:39, January 29, 2015 (UTC)